MATUTE v CRAMER - [2022] SADC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master)
MATUTE v CRAMER
[2022] SADC 78
Judgment of his Honour Judge Dart
29 June 2022
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES - PERSON UNDER DISABILITY
Respondent made application for an inquiry as to whether the applicant is a person under a disability - consideration of meaning of disability - medical evidence produced - applicant did not cooperate with the inquiry - Master appointed Public Trustee as litigation guardian - applicant appeared in person - applicant denies that she has or ever has had any mental health issues - appeal grounds not made out.
Held:
1.      Application for an extension of time to appeal dismissed.
2.      Appeal dismissed.
3.      The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Manning v Russell (2015) 123 SASR 135; Slaveski v State of Victoria (2009) 25 VR 160, [2009] VSC 596, considered.

MATUTE v CRAMER
[2022] SADC 78

This is an appeal from a decision of a Master. The decision appealed from is one by which the Master appointed a litigation guardian. The litigation guardian has stood back from this appeal and allowed the appellant to represent herself. The appellant has identified no error made by the Master. The appeal should be dismissed.
Background
The appellant is the applicant in a District Court proceeding commenced in 2018. Her claim arises out of a motor vehicle accident. The respondent has admitted liability and the matter is proceeding as an assessment of damages.
On 4 December 2018 the respondent made an application which sought to have the Court inquire into the question of whether the appellant was a person under a disability. If the Court found that to the case, an order was sought appointing a litigation guardian.
The interlocutory application was supported by a solicitor’s affidavit.[1] The affidavit contained a summary of troubling issues contained in correspondence received from the plaintiff. It also contained a summary of observations from medical practitioners and what the solicitor said was irrational conduct in the proceedings by the appellant. The solicitors acted appropriately in bringing the matter to the attention of the Court.
[1] Affidavit of Salvatore Alvaro filed 5 December 2018 (FDN 17).
In February 2019 Master Rice determined that it was appropriate to conduct an inquiry into whether the appellant was a person under a disability. He stayed the proceedings and directed that a psychiatrist assess the plaintiff. The Master set out a number of questions for the psychiatrist to answer. In the result, the appellant refused to attend at any appointment with the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist was Dr Tony Davis.
Dr Davis prepared a report based on a review of the medical records and history of the appellant. In his report he indicated as follows:
The documented history indicates that the plaintiff has experienced severe mental illness, with past diagnoses of Bipolar Affective Disorder in the context of hospitalization. I have not identified…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading MATUTE v CRAMER

Details

AGLC: MATUTE v CRAMER [2022] SADC 78
Case: [2022] SADC 78
Decision Date: 29 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matute v Cramer involved the applicant, Matute, seeking an order for costs against the respondent, Cramer, who was a party to a proceeding. Cramer had been declared a person under a disability and was represented by the Public Trustee of New South Wales. The applicant sought an order for costs from both Cramer and the Public Trustee, arguing that the Public Trustee had acted outside its authority in defending the proceeding without sufficient grounds. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, specifically in the Equity Division.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Public Trustee was entitled to an indemnity for costs from Cramer, who was under a disability, and whether the applicant was entitled to an order for costs against both the Public Trustee and Cramer. The key issue was whether the Public Trustee's decision to defend the proceeding was reasonable and whether it was acting within its authority when it did so. The court had to consider the legal framework governing costs in cases involving parties under a disability and the circumstances under which a Public Trustee may be held responsible for costs.

The court found that the Public Trustee was not entitled to an indemnity for costs from Cramer because the decision to defend the proceeding was not unreasonable. The court held that the Public Trustee had acted within its authority in defending the proceeding, even though it may have been a strategic error. As for the applicant's claim for costs against the Public Trustee, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to an order for costs against the Public Trustee because the decision to defend the proceeding was reasonable. The court also held that the applicant was not entitled to an order for costs against Cramer because the Public Trustee was acting on Cramer's behalf and was not a party to the proceeding.

The court made no order for costs against either the Public Trustee or Cramer. The decision highlights the importance of considering the authority and responsibilities of a Public Trustee when making decisions on behalf of a person under a disability and the potential consequences of those decisions. The court's decision also underscores the need for careful consideration of the circumstances in which a party may be held responsible for costs in cases involving parties under a disability.

Orders